Dear praxidice,

Science is not my personal belief. It is grounded in evidence, experiment and the theory based on that evidence and experiment. Creationism and intelligent design are not science. One is free to have whatever religious beliefs they choose, but it should not be confused with science.

i don't feel there need be anything more said on the subject. You may post what you like, but I have had enough.

.

To all and sundry,

.

The battle for the minds of children moved into top gear 23 years ago, in 1990, when a staunch Catholic, right-wing American journalist and (Republican) diplomat, Bruce Chapman, created a non-profit educational foundation and think tank called the Discovery Institute.

Its objective is to teach creationist ant-evolution beliefs in public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.

In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the "Wedge strategy", describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".

It was the Federal Court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a re-dressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.

David f's remonstration on this thread not only echoes that decision but, above all, it is the simple application of what is universally considered the "scientific method", i.e., a method of research in which a phenomenon is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

As we all know, there is no scientific proof of the existence of any supernatural being or "intelligent designer".

The quirk, of course, is that a few otherwise highly reputable American physicists and biologists, albeit staunch religious believers like Chapman, such as Dean Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University and Stephen Meyer, physicist and philosopher of science, actively advocate intelligent design theory.

The temptation is great to treat such advocates as rogue scientists but, while that may be true, their credibility with the general public finds its principal source and strength in the fact that the "science of life" is still very much in its infancy.

In other words, the intelligent design theory thrives on present day ignorance.

.

Dear Banjo,

You wrote: "The battle for the minds of children moved into top gear 23 years ago, in 1990, when a staunch Catholic, right-wing American journalist and (Republican) diplomat, Bruce Chapman, created a non-profit educational foundation and think tank called the Discovery Institute.

Its objective is to teach creationist ant-evolution beliefs in public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects."

John Paul 2 has made a statement on evolution on October 22, 1996. It can be found at http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm which is a Catholic website.

Part of the statement follows:

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

Unlike Bruce Chapman the head of his church, Pope John Paul 2, apparently accepted evolution.

As I've said previously, Darwinian evolution & intelligent design are not in fact incompatible even if extremists of either persuasion believe so. A simple example, few serious students regard the six days of creation as referring literally to six 24 hour days. Reference to ancient Hebrew texts shows clearly that what has been translated as 'days' should really be 'periods'. Personally I wouldn't ascribe any relevance whatever to what any catholic pope decreed as there are plenty of examples where religious leaders made decisions for purely commercial rather than sound theological ones. Control of the sheeple has always been a feature of human leaderswhip whether secular or religious. Furthermore, the bigger any entity, the more it exhibits the 'born to rule' syndrome. In this respect, the catholic church is really no different to the USA. In the beginning, probably both had some semblance of honorable intent but as both entities grew, their own existence was believed far more important than any principles they once might have espoused. Note particularly there is a VAST difference between theology & religion, especially where the 'holy' roman church is involved. Then again, there is a vast difference between the concept of the Westminster political system & the execution thereof.

I posted this some time ago re: the God thing

For the record my position is, there is no god. He/she/it has been invented by humans to explain ignorance or to control the ignorant for power and/or gain. I would like to introduce a new god that is more substantial and realistic than all other franchises.

Introducing “Little Wooden God” (Not to be confused with the less portable Big Wooden God)

Little Wooden God’s advantages over all other franchises are:

You can see it without a psychotic condition (Try that with those other gods).

How it looks is only limited by your imagination.

Everyone can have one.

It is small enough that you can take it with you (Customs bio security permitting).

If you are attacked you can use it to defend yourself.

Hollow ones have the ability to make music.

Solid ones can be used as percussion instruments.

Its carbon neutral (In fact it is a mini carbon sink).

If you can’t swim it can be used as buoyancy.

If you’re cold you can burn it to keep warm. (Replacements are not expensive)

Your children would be safe in its company.

The question of worship has to be addressed:

I would suggest Little Wooden Gods should be driven in a row on a lawn. A holy person should symbolically fend off the “Devils Coach Horse” (an insect otherwise known as a Rove Beetle) symbolized by something round and hard. This is tossed with some vigour at the holy person by one who is not so holy. All the followers could sit around and cheer when the holy person is able to fend of the Devils Coach Horse with a Little Wooden God protecting the other Little Wooden Gods driven in the lawn behind. Followers could wear funny hats and could their own develop side rituals and sects. Sounds a bit stupid I know, but stranger things have caught on.

.

Dear david f,

.

Thanks for that interesting link.

John Paul II was the first and, for the time being, the only pope to understand that it is not in the best interests of the Catholic church to contest the findings of science.

There is ample room for religious faith without the Church having to take the risk of exposing itself to ridicule as in the case of Galileo and others.

.